This is the final communiqué of a series sent out by ACFO concerning the upcoming round of collective bargaining.
The material contained in this communique is geared toward informing the membership of some of the issues and considerations that should be taken into account as ACFO enters negotiations with Treasury Board in the fall of 2004.
Please review the information contained in this document, and do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information or if you have questions about the information in it or the negotiation process.
Our Options
Over the past few weeks, the Association has distributed information regarding our options at the bargaining table.
Essentially, there are two options in front of us in this pre-negotiation period. One is binding arbitration. The other is conciliation/strike. Before the negotiating process begins, one of those options must be selected. Neither preclude the actual bargaining process, but this choice does send an important signal about our intentions.
It is important for you to appreciate that you the member have the power to decide which approach that you feel is most able to suit our objectives.
The Association's Recommendation and Rationale
The Association's goal is to ensure that it positions itself in order to optimize its collective bargaining position so that we achieve a fair and reasonable settlement.
The Board of Directors and the Compensation and Benefits Committee members feel that a Conciliation/Strike dispute resolution mechanism is the best signal to send at the outset of the bargaining process, to improve our bargaining strength. There are a number of reasons why we make this recommendation to the membership.
- Members have complained about the process and the results in the past. While many were happy with the result we achieved in the last round, many felt that more could have been achieved. The reality is that by choosing arbitration, as we have almost by default in the past, the process generally results in us achieving something in the middle between our demands and the employer's offer. This year, our sense is that this would be a disappointment to many, and may cause even greater gaps within our group.
- Members have told us that they feel our compensation should be comparable to AUs. The employer admitted that the AUs are the most "natural internal comparator" in their 2002 arbitration brief. And yet as the earlier communiqués indicated, our group continues to lag them in compensation, sometimes by a wide margin, even though educational requirements are the same for FIs and AUs in almost all job categories. One of the most important reasons that we lag them is that they have been willing to play the strike/conciliation card in negotiations, which has yielded more favourable results at the bargaining table than we have been able to achieve.
They have shown unity, and have been rewarded for doing so.
- We at the Association and on the Compensation and Benefits Committee are more than just your representatives. We work in the same jobs, make the same salaries, and have the same daily experiences as you do. The only difference is that we have looked in detail at the issues involved in negotiations, and have been involved in the negotiating process with Treasury Board in the past, providing us with the benefit of direct personal experience in the process.
That experience tells us that the employer sees our group as apathetic and unwilling to show unity. They sit across the table from us holding a perception that our members aren't willing to take a strong position, and they bank on it in the proposals they put on the table.
- Signalling conciliation/strike as a prelude to negotiations does not mean that there will be a strike. Negotiations will go on in a normal fashion regardless if we send this signal. And if negotiations get to an impasse, there are many steps that can be taken as job actions before the step of actually going on strike would take place. There are many creative methods and approaches available to us if the need arises for job action. And ultimately we can vote to accept a "final offer" from them before taking such action. It is absolutely crucial for you as a member to understand that Conciliation/Strike does not mean we have to carry out a full scale walkout.
- Taking job action will affect government operations. For those who work in the area of systems, for example, a slowdown or shutdown of our role would significantly impair the government's ability to function. More importantly, if things went as far as a strike, by law government cannot give others our work. And by law the employer cannot lock us out.
- The employer is very much concerned, as we are, with disruption of services. With all of the attention that has been given to the mismanagement of public funds and the loss of trust in the Government's ability to manage finances prudently, there is no better time than this round of Collective Bargaining for us to be holding the Conciliation/Strike Card. The last thing the Government needs is the willingness of the Financial Officers to take job action.
Collective Bargaining is like a card game and you need a good hand to win. We believe we have a very good hand. We want the employer to take our demands seriously and they will if we are holding the right cards. We encourage you to support a Conciliation/ Strike dispute resolution mechanism when you vote.
